Personally I think it's a bit silly arguing over great games. They're all worth playing and all have their pros and cons.

However, surprised no one has mentioned the Condemned series either. I thought the fisrt Condemned was brilliant and in my opinion was preferable to Bioshock, but that's only my opinion. The second one was good too. And before anyone shoots me down (pun intended) Bioshock was great but I simply enjoyed Condemned slightly more. And I'm NOT saying Condemned is the BEST shooter on the 360, just a great game and worth a mention.

Infinity Ward is all that COD needs, no more Treyarch they are never as good!V4LENT1NE

This thread is so pointless. What's the point of a game looking great if it plays like a dog? Why are we getting so obsessed with visuals, when it is the gameplay that makes or breaks a game? Give me Halo 3 over Bioshock any day. Who cares if the graphics are a bit "blocky" compared to other titles - it has much greater draw-distance than Bioshock for example. And it also has great multiplayer, co-op, vehicles etc etc and PLAYS WELL. Yes Bioshock has good atmosphere but I think Halo 3 plays better. So what if Army Of Two looks photo-real? If it plays like crud then I ain't touching it, if it plays great then I'll give it a go. They're called video GAMES, coz they involve GAMEplay. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of good graphics to enhance the experience, but I'm getting bored of these threads - no one seems to ever seems to want to discuss "which game plays better", it's all about the gloss. If we persist with this obsession, videogames are going to turn into these shallow vaccuous Hollywood blockbusters that do nothing but deliver style over content. Yawn.